An evaluation of the Umbumbulu Agri-Hub as a model to support small-scale farmers

Rural agricultural context and the provision of extension services

High levels of urbanisation, widespread poverty and growing inequality have resulted in rural economies declining worldwide. More than two-thirds of the world's poorest people still live in rural areas and mainly engage in subsistence agriculture (Todaro and Smith, 2011). These households are poverty stricken and depend mostly on natural resources to sustain their livelihoods. Because rural areas have generally been marginalised from their nation's mainstream economic progress, rural communities remain poverty trapped. In South Africa, 92% of rural farmers are involved in agriculture for food security purposes, while the remaining 8% are engaged in commercial farming (Turner and Satge, 2012).

Commercial farmers have mostly been relying on privatised agricultural support services, while rural resource-poor farmers struggle to access technical, financial and infrastructural support. Since 1994, the South African government has had a focus on providing agricultural extension support to subsistence producers. Public extension services, however, have remained predominantly focused on providing technology transfer and have been unable to engage effectively with small-scale farmers in acknowledging their needs and living circumstances (Turner and Satge, 2012). Turner and Satge (2012) cited data from the Statistics South Africa 2009 General Household Survey which indicated that only 1.8% of households involved in agriculture had received some form of extension services advice in a 12-month period.

The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa provides for three spheres of government: national, provincial and local. At the local, or municipal, level of government the agricultural mandate is limited (see www.info.gov.za). Most municipalities are therefore hesitant to fund, own and manage agricultural hubs. However, adequate government policy and strategies are a prerequisite for an intervention such as an agricultural hub to operate successfully (Benor et al., 1984). There are also numerous pieces of legislation and policies in South Africa, at all spheres of government, which have contributed directly and indirectly towards the Umbumbulu Agri-Hub being successful. Such policies have created a favourable environment for the hub to operate as it legitimises and mandates government sectors and relevant stakeholders to provide support to small, medium and macro enterprises (SMME) and agricultural role players. Even at a municipal level, despite agriculture being a non-mandated function, the eThekwini Municipality has managed to adopt economic and sector-related policies that enable the implementation of the agri-hub model.

Glendenning et al. (2010), Hu et al. (2008) and Worth (2012) describe public extension services to be linear and supply driven, poorly trained and operating out of inflexible departments with top-down hierarchal nature under limited budgets. State services were further criticised for working in isolation with limited linkages and partnerships formed with external resources. Hu et al. (2008) and Saravanan and Veerabhadraiah (2005) argued that recent financial burdens placed on governments and poor performances of extension services have called for more demand-driven approaches.

Anderson (2007) showed that the provision of extension services can be provided by several role players: the public sector; private sector; NGOs, as in the case of the Umbumbulu Agri-Hub; and farmer-based organisations (FBOs). There is a need for extension services to be based on the local needs and demands of farmers (Snapp and Pound, 2008). This requires extension services to be decentralised so that extension officers and their organisations are more closely linked to the farmers. A close working relationship will ensure that the learning process takes the local farmers' knowledge and their local environmental circumstances into consideration. Snapp and Pound's views correlate with findings of a study by Glendenning et al. (2010) on various extension initiatives in India which confirmed the need to work in partnership with farmers to share skills and knowledge in order to address the local needs of farmers. Chambers (1983) and Swanepoel (1997) argued for a bottom-up approach which becomes a difficult task to do if extension services are driven at a national or district level scale. According to Chambers (1983), government extension officers, trained in western technologies, are not suitably positioned to service small-scale farmers as they tend to follow a top-down approach with knowledge sharing flowing in one direction.

FBOs are less common in South Africa among subsistence and small-scale farmers and are only operational among commercial farming. Examples that can be cited in South Africa are in the cotton, timber, grain and sugarcane commodity sectors. FBOs generally have to be well resourced in order to operate. Many attempts have been made in countries such as India, Uganda and Tanzania to set up FBOs. Such FBOs make use of a wide range of communication means to facilitate farmer-to-farmer knowledge exchange (Anderson, 2007; Turner and Satge, 2012). In the South African context, subsistence and small-scale farmers are under-resourced and rely heavily on agricultural agencies to help coordinate their functions. Many of the Umbumbulu farmers are only organised into co-operatives that, with the limited skills they have, does not make it viable for FBOs to manage the hub.

The private sector tends to position itself in service areas where government is unable to provide that service. The literature showed that the private sector tends to be profit driven, focuses on paid services and is, in many cases, linked to a single crop commodity. For example, a private company might be employed to distribute and market chemicals and fertilisers among sugarcane farmers and at the same time provide extension support. According to Glendenning et al. (2010) they operate on profit motives to serve corporate interests with little social investment ploughed back into communities. Saravanan and Veerabhadraiah (2005) describe private extension services as better geared towards farmers with higher levels of education, higher annual incomes, large farms under irrigation and who are inclined to innovation.

The agricultural service centre model in China is successfully operated by NGOs and farmer associations with government only playing a support role. Several, and similar, commodity-type service centres found in South Africa are also operated by non-governmental agencies and foundations.

Saravanan and Veerabhadraiah (2005) show that NGOs are better suited to serve poor, lower educated farmers who have marginal and small farms. NGOs' work ethics are conducive to provide sustainable extension services that address the needs of the farmers. Similar results were found by Todaro and Smith (2011), as well as Davis (2008) who stated that NGOs are less constrained than government in the provision of extension services as they are flexible and can respond rapidly to farmers' needs. Davis (2008) stated that the financial sustainability of providing extension services lies in the decentralisation or transfer of responsibilities to lower spheres of government and agencies such as NGOs. The main advantage is improvement in accountability and management capacity as the scale of operations is smaller and more focused, and there is improved political commitment as agencies are closer to their constituents (Davis, 2008).

Demand-led extension services

Extension services are shifting from supply-driven approaches, which involve technology transfer, to demand-driven approaches in order to respond to a diverse range of needs. Davis (2008) asserted that despite the long history of extension services, in the 1980s extension services, in particular the Training and Visit systems, were questioned due to the high cost of implementation, its inefficiency, ineffectiveness and lack of equity. Benor et al. (1984) and Todaro and Smith (2011) argue that it is because of the impact of the wider agro-economic environment and rural social conditions on poor subsistence and small-scale farmers that has led to the reform of extension programmes into decentralised, outsourced and demand driven and participatory methods. Todaro and Smith (2011) further explained that in order to assist subsistence farmers to grow to a semi-commercial level does not depend entirely on technological information to improve production, but the social, financial and institutional conditions that farmers find themselves in must also be taken into account. These reforms have been noted in countries such as India, China, Brazil and Denmark. Jones and Garforth (1997) call for more client-orientated extension services where farmers' needs are identified through participatory means.

Because of the external agro-economic and social factors, the scope of extension services has also widened to include other agricultural associated aspects such as marketing, business and financial management, institutional development, regulatory and policy frameworks, environmental and climate change impacts, as well as sustainable natural resource usage. It is therefore more than just advising on production and land conservation methods. Extension officers have become facilitators as in the case of Brazil and the flow of information is now two way. Extension officers and farmers learn together and share knowledge through participatory processes to jointly resolve problems. Because of the marginalised nature of resource-poor farmers who mostly live in poverty, extension services encompasses rural livelihood services to address other social needs such as family health and nutrition, impact of HIV and AIDS, adult education, and so forth. Extension has also evolved to become more pluralistic. This was previously a government mandate only, but their role has diminished due to government budget restrictions and poor service delivery. The private sector and NGOs have therefore come to the fore to play a role in extension services. With the involvement of multi-role players a trend has emerged, with government continuing to serve poor subsistence and semi-commercial farmers, while the private sector focuses on commercial farmers (Davis, 2008).

Decentralised extension services

Turner and Satge (2012) stated that good extension services need good management, which is generally lacking in the government sector. Management functions are made difficult when extension services are provided to a range of different agricultural commodities. It is for this reason that many governments have chosen to defragment their extension services. For example, to decentralise extension services for crop production to NGOs or farmer groups. Countries such as India, China and Kenya have reverted to a hierarchal system of establishing several levels of support centres in order to bring services closer to the farmers. This approach has already been identified in the Agricultural Management Unit, eThekwini Municipality's strategy, and was raised as a beneficial approach in interviews held with the eThekwini Municipal officials and the Umbumbulu Agri-Hub staff. The hierarchal system consists of an upper tier of centres that are centrally located, managed and owned by the state that provide the necessary financial, research and training, legislative and policy support to the lower tiers. The lower tiers, in turn, are located locally and provide direct services to the small-scale farmers and are in many cases, as cited in in some South African commodity-based service centres, owned and operated by NGOs and FBOs. The literature on international and national precedents further cites innovative examples of village extension workers being capacitated to lead by example and to involve neighbouring communities into the agricultural sector. The establishment of farmer organisations to assist with facilitating and mobilising the interests and demands of farmers is also a key trend in extension cases. In the case of commercial resource-rich farmers, extension services are increasingly provided by the private sector.

There are several emerging issues and trends that were identified in the literature reviewed. First, the need to hire out basic equipment to farmers, the provision of processing facilities for value adding to generate additional income and the promotion of agricultural graduates taking up commercial activities surrounding the centres (lDRC, 2003; NABARD, 2012). Second, the provision of a tiered service centre model, each tier to focus on a specific level of extension services that would also involve and capacitate community-based organisations and farmer associations to play a role (eThekwini Municipality, 2010; INR, 2006; KACE: www.kacekenya.co.ke/marketinfo/index; Yongling, 2004). Third, the need to create a linkage with particular government programmes in order to secure funding (Cotton SA, 2004). Fourth, the need to strengthen the link between research and extensions services. Finally, the need for the provision of non-agricultural services such as general skills development, adult education and health programmes (Cotton SA, 2004). In essence, from the literature reviewed there is recognition that one size does not fit all and that extension services should be specifically designed according to the users' location and circumstances.

Chetty (2009) and Vittuari and Segre (2009) described several barriers and challenges such as lack of skills and capacity building, access to markets, business premises, lack of infrastructure and physical equipment, low levels of education, and gender dynamics that prevent small-scale farmers and agricultural SMME's to grow. The Umbumbulu Agri-Hub is managing to overcome several of these barriers by nurturing small-scale growers and providing them with a range of services resulting in dramatic improvement in their farming activities.

The Umbumbulu Agri-Hub model

The literature showed that agricultural hubs can operate under different business model types depending on its size and area of focus. The Umbumbulu Agri-Hub currently operates as a general purpose hub following an ‘open source’ small-scale business model. The hub is an ‘embedded hub’ as defined by Lazarus (2012) as it is currently too small to cover its own running costs and relies on operating funding from the municipality. These combined models appear best suited to Umbumbulu given: the range of services provided by the hub to small grower types; its location in a rural context where the overall market for an agri-hub is small and where the hub supplies small niche market outlets. Lazarus (2012) further explained that the ‘open source’ model is best geared towards small-scale farmers that operate for food security and economic opportunity reasons. The farmers at Umbumbulu are predominantly subsistence and semi-commercial farmers coming from poor families and would therefore not be in a position to afford to pay for services. The literature indicates that over the years, in many countries, agricultural extension has mainly been financed by the public sector due to it being viewed as a public good and as a result it is likely to remain in the hands of government.

The Umbumbulu Agri-Hub focuses mainly on the production of vegetables and seasonal herbs for supply to local markets. Services currently provided include: training, mentorship services, provision of discounted input supplies, a seedling bank, assistance with provision of tools and farming equipment, marketing of produce on behalf of the growers and the provision of technical support and advice to farmers. The land occupied by the hub, and its assets, are owned by the eThekwini Municipality. The municipality appointed an NGO, the Newlands Mashu Community Development Centre, through its subsidiary Partner Farmer, to manage the agri-hub on a three-year contract. The agri-hub has a staff complement of three people: a centre manager, an administrative assistant and an extension officer (Newlands Mashu, 2011). The hub's infrastructure consists of two converted shipping containers, placed in a functional manner under a single roof structure, on a serviced site area of approximately 600 square metres. The containers provide office space, ablutions, a board room, refrigeration facilities and an open space for the grading, weighing and washing of produce. External to the container structure is a demonstration garden and parking facilities.

Findings from the Umbumbulu Agri-Hub's records and discussion

The Umbumbulu Agri-Hub currently services 40 grower groups, including a number of individual farmers. They are all located within a 10 km radius from the agri-hub. The total number of farmer groups benefitting is in excess of 180. In addition to this, 540 temporary jobs, estimated at a ratio of 1:3 have been created through the employment of temporary labour during harvesting times and as general helpers (Newlands Mashu, 2011). The farmer groups join the Agri-Hub as partner farmers in order to receive support from it. All the farmers use tribal communal land for which permission to occupy is granted according to tribal customs.

According to the Umbumbulu Agri-Hub's records, it had a membership base of 80 farmers in 2011, consisting of 24 agricultural gardens. By 2013 this membership had increased to 560 members, operating from 181 gardens. Of the 181 gardens, 45% (82) of the membership were individual farmers, with 55% (99) consisting of group farmers. The increase in membership correlates with the hub's training records that reflect an increase from 21 farmers per month being trained in 2011 to 49 farmers per month for 2013.

The number of farmers involved per garden varied from 2 to 12 people. Not all the members involved in group farming were actually involved in farming activities, as many members, particularly in the registered co-operatives, perform non-agricultural tasks and responsibilities. The number of 560 members is therefore not a true reflection of the actual farmers that are directly involved with the hub. Of the group farmers, the hub's progress reports indicate that there are 40 groups that are formally registered as co-operatives. From the data it is evident that the hub's membership increased over the three-year period from 2011 to 2013, which indicates that the hub has been operating satisfactorily.

The agri-hub provided constant training during the first two years with a significant increase in numbers trained in the third year. This increase was a result of the increase in membership from 39 new members in 2011 to 122 in 2013. Although baseline data were unavailable, farmers indicated in their responses to the questionnaire that they had received very little training prior to the establishment of the agri-hub.

Efficient mentorship through visits to farmers also increased from 28 farmers per month in 2011 to 99 farmers per month in 2013. Sixty per cent of the respondents indicated that they received 1–3 visits from the agri-hub's extension officer on a monthly basis. Although the farm visits per farmer appears to be high, the hub's extension officer to farmer ratio is far below the norms and standards prescribed by the South African Department of Agriculture. The department recommends a ratio of one extension officer for every 250 semi-commercial farmers.

The provision of seed and seedling supply is probably the most critical support aspect that the Umbumbulu Agri-Hub provides. The hub's ability to supply subsidised seeds is a huge financial benefit to farmers. On average, over the three years, the hub has shown the ability to produce and supply 8600 seedlings to 62 farmers per month. The subsidy cost has ranged from R109 to 388 per farmer per month. This cost is fully inclusive of seed and seedling supply, fertilisers and mentorship support. The estimated savings that the farmers derived ranged from R114 to 588 per month (author analyses from the Umbumbulu Agri-Hub Monthly Progress Reports 2011–2013).

Based on the seedlings supplied, farmers were able to produce 5.2 tons of produce for the second half of 2011 (1.2 tons per month), 3.7 tons in the second half of 2012 (0.74 tons per month) and 18.2 tons in the first half of 2013 (3.1 tons per month). Data were only captured for a period of six months per year.

The average production per farmer had increased from 16 kg per month in 2011 to 33 kg in 2012, and 71 kg in 2013. The provision of subsidised services, training and mentorship has played a valuable role towards the farmers' achievement in production growth.

Findings from the questionnaire and discussion

Of the 49 respondents, 60% of the farmers were female. In South Africa the 2010 Labour Force Survey (cited by Turner and Satge (2012)) showed that 61% of smallholder farmers are women. Similar findings are reported for other developing countries. For example, Todaro and Smith (2011) asserted that in Africa subsistence food and cash crop production is mainly performed by women who tend to spend their earnings more on family social needs in comparison to men. Furthermore, according to Jiggins et al. (1997), Snapp and Pound (2008) and Todaro and Smith (2011), government extension programmes tend to exclude women due to their illiteracy levels and cultural customs restricting women to own land and credit. Despite these shortcomings, international studies concluded that agricultural projects are more successful if resources are placed under women's control. Therefore, women need to equally benefit from extension services as in the case of the Umbumbulu Agri-Hub.

The age profile of the respondents was as follows: between the ages of 60 and 74 years (35%), 50 and 59 years (33%), 36 and 49 years (18%) and 25 and 35 years (14%). The average age of the respondents was 49 years. Sixty-eight per cent of the farmers do not have a matric qualification with 35% not having even entered high school. Further analysis of the data showed that respondents who were 36–50 years old have the highest qualification levels with either a matric or tertiary education. The relatively high percentage of illiteracy among the farmers is a strong indication that they could benefit from the agri-hub's training and support programmes. The range of education levels needs to be considered in the agri-hub's programme development.

A farmer's development stage is an important factor when determining the required measures of support. In this study, the most significant group of farmers were those with relatively new farms, less than four years, which consisted of 78% of the farmers. Of this, 18% had been farming for less than one year. It was evident that most farmers are in the emerging or start-up phase of their informal businesses. Only 22% of farmers had been operating for longer than five years. The high percentage of new farmers is also an indication that support must be structured for their particular needs in order to evolve from a subsistence to a semi-commercial level of farming.

The majority of the farmers (84%) practise semi-commercial farming. Of these farmers, 85% consume 20% of their produce and 15% consume 50% of their produce. Ten per cent of the farmers are purely subsistence farmers, consuming all their produce, with a fractional 6% farming on a full commercial basis, with all produce being sold to the agri-hub. The data revealed that it is generally the semi-commercial farmers, who are older in age, that consume the highest percentage of their own produce. These farmers are often still constrained by poverty and/or are responsible for households that contain children orphaned through HIV and AIDS. All subsistence farmers interviewed were over the age of 60 years.

Farmers indicated they were frequently visited by the agri-hub's mentor. Thirty-four per cent indicate they were visited 1–2 times per week, 60% stated 1–3 times per month and 6% stated 1–4 times per year. These findings exceed what was reported in the 2010 Labour Force Survey (cited by Turner and Satge (2012)) which stated that only 1.8% of households involved in agriculture had received extension advice in a 12-month period.

An overwhelming 55% of respondents visit the Umbumbulu Agri-Hub on a monthly basis, with 29% visiting on a weekly basis. Sixteen per cent had visited the hub less than six times. These were generally the respondents located the furthest away from the hub and who had to endure high transport costs. Further analysis of the data indicated that the agri-hub received an average of 96 farmer visits monthly. The reasons stated by the respondents for visiting the agri-hub included: seed collection (18%), delivering produce for sale (22%) and collecting input supplies (17%). Other significant reasons were to attend training (21%) and seeking advice (22%). The latter indicates the need for further training and that farmers are generally willing to approach the hub in search of advice.

The farmers received support ranging from general agricultural advice to more specific advice on soil and water management, garden preparations, composting, permaculture and organic farming principles. Most respondents highlighted the need for further support measures to improve their farming enterprises. The types of support measures that were in greatest demand included: advanced training (22%), bedding preparation and crop rotations (15%), ploughing services (15%) and fencing requirements (15%). Respondents also identified provision of water tanks and irrigation systems (9%), supply of compost (8%) and farming equipment (8%) as needs. Additional support measures mentioned to a lesser degree were pest control (3%), transport of produce to the hub (4%) and provision of a nursery (1%). The findings suggest that 95% of the respondents required some further measure of support in order to ensure that their farming businesses grow and continue to be sustainable. This indicates that, despite the numerous government policies, strategies and programmes in place, as identified in the literature review, more support is required for small-scale emerging farmers.

In terms of training received from the hub, 40 respondents (82%) stated they had already received training. Of these respondents, an average of 82% rated the training programmes as beneficial and of good value. This high percentage is an indication that the training programmes being offered are successful and well accepted by the farmers. Farmers also indicated that they had received very little training before the existence of the hub.

A significant 92% of respondents indicated that the Umbumbulu Agri-Hub is conveniently located. Reasons given were the hub's centrality, accessibility to public transport and most importantly its location within a rural node setting. As a result of the nodal setting, farmers were able to access other government facilities that are also in the node such as the Traditional Council offices, Department of Agriculture, Department of Home Affairs, Department of Social Welfare, municipal offices and the community hall where most of the hub's theoretical training was conducted. Other non-government facilities such as the taxi rank, retail shops and banks were also accessible to the respondents. The transport services offered by the hub in respect of delivery of input supplies, and collection of produce and delivery to markets, as well as visits by the hub's mentor played a positive influence on this result, as locational factors then become of a lesser concern. The remaining 8% of respondents, who were not in favour of the hub's location, were predominately farmers located the furthest away from the hub, in areas such as Tafelkop and Umlazi. High public transport costs also impacted on these farmers' negative response.

Ninety per cent of the farmers had experienced crop yield and quality improvements since they received extension support from the hub. Reasons raised by respondents were the support, training and knowledge that they received from the hub. Respondents also complimented the hub's services stating that support measures are designed around the farmers' abilities to farm and produce without placing high pressures and demands on them. Ten per cent of the farmers, that is five respondents, did not experience improvements. Two, out of these five, respondents were farmers who had only been farming for six months and had not yet harvested crops, while the remaining three respondents named a lack of ploughing assistance, farming equipment and water shortages as reasons for slow crop production. Other reasons mentioned were a lack of fencing which had resulted in cattle grazing in the fields and destroying crops.

The majority of respondents (92%) had seen produce sales improve since the Umbumbulu Agri-Hub's intervention. Reasons mentioned were an increase in knowledge as the hub was able to address the farmers' needs. Other reasons noted were the facilitation role the hub played in empowering the farmers, facilitating access to markets, provision of subsidised seedlings and mentorship support. Specific mention was made, that due to the support they received, households were able to free up resources and time which could be allocated to other livelihood needs. Farmers were subsequently in a better position to sustainably feed their families, as well as generate income from crop sales.

It may be argued that the new agricultural extension trends identified by Anderson (2007), Chambers (1983), Jones and Garforth (1997) and Worth (2008), which are being portrayed by the Umbumbulu Agri-Hub, have contributed to the improvement in the agricultural production of the respondents. Trends such as: the decentralised location of the hub, the facilitative role it plays and its pro-poor and demand-led approach to empowering farmers are some of the characteristics cited in the literature and mentioned by the respondents.

Findings from the interviews and discussion

Semi-structured and unstructured interviews took place July–August 2013, with five purposely selected representatives from the Umbumbulu Agri-Hub, eThekwini and ILembe Municipalities and the KwaZulu-Natal Department of Agriculture.

In the interview with the Umbumbulu Agri-Hub Centre Manager, it was confirmed that the farmers have benefitted from training provision, subsidised seedlings as well as facilitated access to markets. These interventions were structured according to the farmers' needs. The hub was also able to leverage external support and funding for the farmers which added value. The farmers benefitted from partnerships with other organisations that contributed or funded additional extension services. Furthermore, the interview revealed that the capital assets for the hub were adequate to perform its duties despite the shortage of training and storage space. However, the temporary nature of the agri-hub's structures had a negative impact on the farmers' decision to commit fully to the hub's membership programme.

In the interview with the Head of the eThekwini Infrastructure Management and Socio-Economic Development Unit, the municipality's role was explained to be limited to mainly infrastructure support, provided to community farms, and that the municipality was constrained in facilitating access to markets or dealing with the purchase and resale of produce. The challenges the department was experiencing in dealing with agricultural matters were a result of agriculture being a non-mandated function. Even with policy measures in place, the department still found it difficult to establish a dedicated unit to take on overall agricultural responsibilities.

The views expressed by the eThekwini Municipality Local Economic Development Officer were that, despite the large geographical area covered by the Umbumbulu Agri-Hub, the services offered by the hub were impressive based on the monthly progress reports, and that the hub has provided a range of services, some of which the municipality is unable to provide.

The District Manager for the Department of Agriculture stated in his interview that there has been a government policy shift with more emphasis placed on supporting small-scale farmers. Some of the hub farmers had benefitted from ploughing services, irrigation infrastructure and the supply of pack houses that were provided by the department. The district manager suggested that the hub could potentially play a role in the provision of produce to schools and government hospitals in terms of various feeding and nutrition schemes. Similar suggestions were made in the interview conducted with the Enterprise Ilembe Agency Director, who stated that agri-hubs are being conceptualised to play a vital role in the National Schools Nutrition Programme.

From the above findings, it can be concluded that the Umbumbulu Agri-Hub has played a positive role in the lives of rural small-scale farmers. Although the literature and other studies specific to agricultural hubs were limited, there is substantial evidence that suggests extension services are an important mechanism to assist farmers in improving their production systems. Although the main focus of extension services was previously on food production undertaken by commercial farmers, there has been a shift towards small and resource-poor farmers. In recent years, new innovative approaches have emerged, such as participatory rural appraisals, which view the extension officer and the farmer as sharing their knowledge as well as working together to solve agricultural-related problems (Chambers, 1983). Christoplos (2010) added that the role of extension officers has widened and is now faced with various additional challenges to address such as: business advisory challenges, linking farmers to markets and other external support opportunities, understanding rural livelihood needs through a systems approach and dealing with climate change impacts. All the characteristics and approaches described in the literature review can be found in the Umbumbulu Agri-Hub. It can therefore be concluded that the hub has incorporated many of the new trends identified in the literature and that the farmers have reaped the benefits.